DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application Status
This office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 02/24/2026.
The 35 USC112 rejection of claims 9 and 19 have been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s claim amendments.
This action has been made FINAL.
35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph
Claim Interpretations
Claim limitation “means for receiving” and “means for processing” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, because they use non-structural terms “means” coupled with functional language “receiving” and “processing,” etc., without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier. Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, claim 20 is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph limitation: pars. 0142 and Fig. 18.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant alleged the following on page 10 of the remarks: “Applicants' claimed inventive concept-where a user composes a conversational message intended for another user, and that same message text is repurposed as the creative seed for generating a custom sticker-is simply absent from Mahar's template-based architecture. Nowhere does Mahar describe or suggest what is claimed. Instead, Mahar describes how stickers may be added to a media content item. In paragraph 0192, Mahar briefly mentions the ability to edit and create custom stickers, but not using as input the text that comprises a message input to an input field of a messaging application for communication to another user. Davidson describes prompting a user to provide a description or characteristics of an image to be generated, which is not similar to or suggestive of what Applicants' claim 1 recites. At least for these reasons, claim 1 is not obvious in view of the combination of Mahar and Davidson.”. The examiner is not persuaded.
The combination of Mahar and Davidson discloses the Applicant’s amended claim language of “text comprising a message composed by a user of the client device for transmitting to another user” Paragraphs 0019; 0023; 0027; 0029 of Mahar.
PNG
media_image1.png
262
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moreover, the combination of Mahar and Davidson discloses the Applicant’s amended claim limitation of “the text input into a message input field of a chat interface presented at the client device and processing the request” in Paragraphs 0049; 0060 of Mahar.
PNG
media_image2.png
207
900
media_image2.png
Greyscale
MPEP § 2106 states Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-7, 10-12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahar, US Patent Application Publication No.: 20250047969 in view of Davidson, US Patent No.: 12153778.
Claim 1:
Mahar discloses a method performed by a server for generating a custom sticker in response to a request from a client device (See Mahar Abstract; Paragraphs 0020; 0061; 0077; 0094; 0098; 0192). Mahar failed to disclose prompt including an instruction to a generative language model to interpret the text. However, Davidson discloses the feature in Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Mahar by including prompt including an instruction to a generative language model to interpret the text, as taught by Davidson, to thereby create prompted text-to-image generation using artificial intelligence, more effectively (See Davidson Abstract; Field of Invention and Summary). In addition, the references teaches features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as artificial intelligence. This close relation between the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As modified:
The combination of Mahar and Davidson discloses the following:
receiving the request from the client device, the request including text comprising a message composed by a user of the client device for transmitting to another user (See Mahar Paragraphs 0019; 0023; 0027; 0029), the text input into a message input field of a chat interface presented at the client device and processing the request by (See Mahar Paragraphs 0049; 0060):
dynamically generating a first prompt based on the text received with the request using a first predefined prompt template (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40), the first prompt including an instruction to a generative language model to interpret the text and generate (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40), as output, a textual description (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40) of the custom sticker (See Mahar Paragraphs 0020; 0061; 0077; 0094; 0098; 0192);
providing the first prompt to a generative language model (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40), as input, and receiving from the generative language model, as output, the textual description (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40) of the custom sticker (See Mahar Paragraphs 0020; 0061; 0077; 0094; 0098; 0192);
dynamically generating a second prompt to include the textual description (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40) of the custom sticker (See Mahar Paragraphs 0020; 0061; 0077; 0094; 0098; 0192) using a second predefined prompt template, the second prompt (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40) including an instruction to a generative image model to interpret the textual description (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40) of the custom sticker (See Mahar Paragraphs 0020; 0061; 0077; 0094; 0098; 0192) and generate, as output, an image file representing the custom sticker (See Mahar Paragraphs 0020; 0061; 0077; 0094; 0098; 0192);
providing the second prompt (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40) to the generative image model, as input, and receiving from the generative image model (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40), as output, an image file representing the custom sticker (See Mahar Paragraphs 0020; 0061; 0077; 0094; 0098; 0192);
and sending the image file representing the custom sticker to the client device (See Mahar Paragraphs 0020; 0061; 0077; 0094; 0098; 0192).
Claim 2:
The combination of Mahar and Davidson discloses prior to sending the image file to the client device, processing the image file by overlaying (See Mahar Paragraph 0039-0046) a caption onto an image of the image file, the caption derived to include the text input into the message input field of the chat interface (See Mahar Paragraphs 0049; 0060).
Claim 6:
The combination of Mahar and Davidson discloses wherein dynamically generating the second prompt (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40) comprises: dynamically generating the second prompt (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40) using the second predefined prompt template to include an input prompt specifying the textual description (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40) of the custom sticker (See Mahar Paragraphs 0020; 0061; 0077; 0094; 0098; 0192), and a negative prompt specifying, as constraints, undesirable elements and characteristics to be excluded (See Davidson Column 9, Lines 28-35) from the image file representing the custom sticker (See Mahar Paragraphs 0020; 0061; 0077; 0094; 0098; 0192).
Claim 7:
The combination of Mahar and Davidson discloses wherein dynamically generating the second prompt further (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40) comprises: dynamically generating the second prompt (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40) using the second predefined prompt template(See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40) to include one or more examples, each example comprising a textual description (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40) of a sticker paired with an image file representing a sticker, as desired output (See Mahar Paragraphs 0020; 0061; 0077; 0094; 0098; 0192).
Claim 10:
The combination of Mahar and Davidson discloses wherein sending the custom sticker (See Mahar Paragraphs 0020; 0061; 0077; 0094; 0098; 0192) to the client device includes causing the client device to: present the custom sticker along with a plurality of other stickers within a sticker tray (See Mahar Paragraphs 0020; 0061; 0077; 0094; 0098; 0192) of the chat interface (See Mahar Paragraphs 0049; 0060), each sticker within the sticker tray user-selectable (See Mahar Paragraphs 0020; 0061; 0077; 0094; 0098; 0192) and, upon selection of a sticker in the sticker tray (See Mahar Paragraphs 0020; 0061; 0077; 0094; 0098; 0192), the selected sticker (See Mahar Paragraphs 0020; 0061; 0077; 0094; 0098; 0192) will populate the message input field of the client device, thereby enable a user to send the selected sticker (See Mahar Paragraphs 0020; 0061; 0077; 0094; 0098; 0192) to another user over a network by activating a send button in the chat interface (See Mahar Paragraphs 0049; 0060).
Claims 11, 12 and 16-17:
Claims 11, 12 and 16-17 are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 2, 6-7 and 10.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as claim 1 and 10.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahar, US Patent Application Publication No.: 20250047969 in view of Davidson, US Patent No.: 12153778 and in further view of Prasad, US 12223121.
Claim 3:
The combination of Mahar and Davidson failed to disclose content check. However, this feature is disclosed in Column 17, Lines 59-67 & Column 18, Lines 1-15. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Mahar and Davidson by including content check, as taught by Prasad, to thereby analyze a plurality of factors associated with the inputs, more effectively (See Prasad Summary of the Invention). In addition, the references teaches features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as artificial intelligence. This close relation between the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As modified:
The combination of Mahar, Davidson and Prasad discloses the following:
prior to dynamically generating the first prompt (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40), performing a content check (See Prasad Column 17, Lines 59-67 & Column 18, Lines 1-15) on the text received with the request by comparing the text against a predefined list of objectionable words and phrases (See Prasad Column 17, Lines 59-67 & Column 18, Lines 1-15); and discontinuing the processing of the request if the content check (See Prasad Column 17, Lines 59-67 & Column 18, Lines 1-15) identifies any words or phrases, within the text, from the predefined list of objectionable words and phrases (See Prasad Column 17, Lines 59-67 & Column 18, Lines 1-15).
Claim 5:
The combination of Mahar and Davidson discloses prior to dynamically generating the second prompt (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40), performing a content check (See Prasad Column 17, Lines 59-67 & Column 18, Lines 1-15) on the textual description of the custom sticker (See Mahar Paragraphs 0020; 0061; 0077; 0094; 0098; 0192) received as output from the generative language model (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40); and upon the content check passing (See Prasad Column 17, Lines 59-67 & Column 18, Lines 1-15), performing a rule-based term replacement process on the textual description of the custom sticker (See Mahar Paragraphs 0020; 0061; 0077; 0094; 0098; 0192) to replace specific words or phrases with alternative words or phrases, according to one or more predefined rules (See Prasad Column 17, Lines 59-67 & Column 18, Lines 1-15).
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis as claim 3.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as claim 5.
Claim(s) 4, 9, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahar, US Patent Application Publication No.: 20250047969 in view of Davidson, US Patent No.: 12153778 and in further view of Ghosh, US 20240404225.
Claim 4:
The combination of Mahar and Davidson failed to explicitly disclose a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) object. However, Ghosh discloses the feature in paragraph 0038. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Mahar and Davidson by including a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) object, as taught by Ghosh, to thereby create a digital representation by offering a unique and customized presence in online spaces for more engaging and immersive digital experiences, more effectively (See Ghosh Background of the Invention). In addition, the references teaches features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as artificial intelligence. This close relation between the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As modified:
The combination of Mahar, Davidson and Ghosh discloses the following:
wherein dynamically generating the first prompt (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40) further comprises: dynamically generating the first prompt using the first predefined prompt template to include instructions to the generative language model (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40) to format the output as a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) object (See Ghosh Paragraph 038), the JSON object (See Ghosh Paragraph 038) to include i) the textual description of the custom sticker (See Mahar Paragraphs 0020; 0061; 0077; 0094; 0098; 0192), and ii) the text received with the request as input via the message input field of the chat interface (See Mahar Figure 13, Item 1316; Paragraphs 0191-0192).
Claim 9
The combination of Mahar, Davidson and Ghosh discloses the following:
wherein the generative image model (See Davidson Figure 1, Item 110; Column 1, Lines 15-67; Column 2, Lines 1-40; Column 7, Lines 57-60; Column 8, Lines 20-40) is selected from the group consisting of:
a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN), utilizing competing neural networks to generate image files with images that are visually similar to authentic images based on text-based prompts (See Ghosh Paragraph 0136);
a Variational Autoencoder (VAE), using a probabilistic approach to generate image files with images by encoding inputs into a latent space and then decoding the inputs back to outputs, guided by text-based prompts (See Ghosh Paragraphs 0251-0258);
and a Transformer-based model, designed for image generation by processing text-based prompts through self-attention mechanisms to produce image files with images (See Davidson Column 2, Lines 20-31).
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as claim 4.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as claim 9.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahar, US Patent Application Publication No.: 20250047969 in view of Davidson, US Patent No.: 12153778 and in further view of SOARES, US 20250124624.
Claim 8:
The combination of Mahar and Davidson failed to disclose generative language model is a Large Language Model (LLM) accessible to the server over a network. However, SOARES discloses this feature in paragraphs 0041; 0063. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Mahar and Davidson by including generative language model is a Large Language Model (LLM), as taught by SOARES, to thereby quickly create and customize images using generative language models, more effectively (See SOARES Abstract). In addition, the references teaches features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as creating customized graphics (i.e. images/stickers). This close relation between the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as claim 8.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240422113 relates to techniques for facilitating selection of stickers in the context of an interaction system that provides a messaging application or service.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEREE N BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-4229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAID BROOME can be reached at (571) 272-2931. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHEREE N BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612 March 9, 2026